MARIUS FĂGĂRAŞ (coord.)

20
3 MARIUS FĂGĂRAŞ (coord.) Studii comparative privind biodiversitatea habitatelor costiere, impactul antropic şi posibilităţile de conservare şi restaurare a habitatelor de importanţă europeană dintre Capul Midia şi Capul Kaliakra Volum cu lucrările Conferinţei de la Constanţa (Mamaia, 26-28 septembrie 2008) Editura EX PONTO Constanţa, 2008

Transcript of MARIUS FĂGĂRAŞ (coord.)

Page 1: MARIUS FĂGĂRAŞ (coord.)

3

MARIUS FĂGĂRAŞ (coord.)

Studii comparative privind biodiversitatea habitatelor

costiere, impactul antropic şi posibilităţile de conservare şi

restaurare a habitatelor de importanţă europeană dintre

Capul Midia şi Capul Kaliakra

Volum cu lucrările Conferinţei de la Constanţa

(Mamaia, 26-28 septembrie 2008)

Editura EX PONTO

Constanţa, 2008

Page 2: MARIUS FĂGĂRAŞ (coord.)

71

AMPHIBIANS AND REPTILES FROM THE BLACK SEA COAST AREA BETWEEN CAPE MIDIA AND CAPE KALIAKRA

Dan COGĂLNICEANU, Ciprian SAMOILĂ, Marian TUDOR, Marius SKOLKA

University Ovidius Constanţa, Faculty of Natural Sciences

B-dul Mamaia, nr. 124, Constanţa, 900527, Romania, [email protected] __________________________________________________________________________________________

Abstract: We present a preliminary inventory of amphibian and reptile species along the coastline between Cape Midia (Romania) and Cape Kaliakra (Bulgaria). Eight amphibian species and nine reptile species were inventoried in the area. The inventory was not complete since the species accumulation curve did not reach the plateau, but the results can provide an useful baseline for a future monitoring program in the area. The two countries share many common environmental problems along the Black Sea coastline, but more efforts are required to integrate existing conservation and legislation measures into effective tools for biodiversity conservation.

Keywords: inventory, amphibians, reptiles, species richness, distribution, mapping, geodatabase __________________________________________________________________________________________

Introduction The coastal area between Cape Midia and Cape Kaliakra belongs to the Pontic (Black Sea) bioregion and

presents unique characteristics. It stretches along approximately 120 km and has been impacted by humans for thousands of years. The Romanian coastline has been transformed by urban, tourism and industrial development, with few parts left in a semi-natural state. The Bulgarian coastline is less stressed by human development; here there are few localities and tourist facilities and no industrial areas. The area covered by the present study does not only follow a North-South latitudinal gradient, but also a mosaic of human-impacted areas.

Amphibians and reptiles are taxa that appeared and evolved during hundreds of millions of years, surviving several major extinction periods. Nevertheless, they are sensible to human impact and are good indicators of the state of the environment. Both amphibians (Stuart et al. 2004) and reptiles (Gibbons et al. 2000) are declining worldwide and are considered priority taxa for conservation (Gascon et al. 2007). Monitoring amphibian and reptile populations is recommended since they are sensible to even minor changes in the quality of their habitats (Dodd et al. in press). In the present paper we present a preliminary inventory of amphibian and reptile species along the coastline between Cape Midia (Romania) and Cape Kaliakra (Bulgaria), providing the baseline data for a future monitoring program in the area.

Materials and Methods During April until August 2008 we conducted monthly field trips lasting four to five days each along the

entire coastline. We used a combination of visual encounter, active search and dip-net sampling techniques to detect amphibians, as well as visual encounter and active search for reptiles. The geographical coordinates and altitude of each site were recorded with a handheld Garmin GPS device.

We also recorded the characteristics of aquatic and terrestrial habitat (type, area, maxim depth, pH, conductivity, vegetation, presence of predators) and the human impact. Existing distribution data was based on Szekely et al. (in press) for the Romanian part, and on several publications covering the area of interest in Bulgaria (Lepşi 1926; 1927; 1929; Beschkov 1984a; 1984b; 1985). We did not consider the updated taxonomic nomenclature, such as the one proposed by Frost et al. (2006) for amphibians; instead we used the taxonomy still valid in the national legislations. We built an amphibians and reptiles geodatabase in order to manage the geographic distribution of species records and perform spatial queries. The spatial data originated in two main sources: GPS data collection from the inventory in 2008 and locality data extracted from bibliographic sources.

Page 3: MARIUS FĂGĂRAŞ (coord.)

72

Both types of data were spatially joined to the UTM 5x5 km grid system based on the corresponding cell code attributes, and then exported as polygon feature classes and related attribute tables into a personal geodatabase.

We performed the spatial analysis on species records and produced a series of maps with ArcGIS Desktop 9.3, using the ESRI Data and Maps 2008, and elevation Data from NASA, NGA, USGS as main basemap sources. The coordinate system used for each map was UTM Zone 35N, and datum: WGS 1984 (Figure 1).

Figure 1 - The Black Sea coastal area between Cape Midia and Cape Kaliakra

covered by the present study

A species accumulation curve was computed for amphibians and reptiles based on individual site data (i.e. sample based) using EstimateS 7.5 (Colwell, 2005). Sample order was randomized 50 times and mean richness

Page 4: MARIUS FĂGĂRAŞ (coord.)

73

estimates were computed for each sample accumulation level. This removes the effect of sample order and generates a smoother curve.

Results and Discussion Amphibians and reptiles are widespread along the coastline, even in highly impacted areas. During our

inventory we found individuals of eight amphibian species (Bombina bombina, Pelobates fuscus, Pelobates syriacus, Bufo viridis, Hyla arborea, Rana kl. esculenta, R. lessonae, R. ridibunda), and nine reptile species (Testudo graeca, Emys orbicularis, Lacerta viridis, L. trilineata, Podarcis taurica, P. muralis, Pseudopus apodus, Coluber caspius, Natrix natrix, Vipera ammodytes). Since the collecting effort differed between the two countries, we analyzed the data separately. The species accumulation curves based on the number of inventoried sites did not reach a plateau for both countries (Figures 2 and 3), indicating that the inventory was incomplete.

This is normal for the two taxa where species detectability varies within a wide range. Some species (e.g. Pelobates sp., Eryx jaculus) are active only during the night, or possess cryptic coloration (e.g. Vipera ammodytes) and thus have a lower detectability

0

5

10

15

20

25

1 6 11 16 21 26 31 36 41

Number of localities

Spec

ies

richn

ess

Figure 2 – Species accumulation curve for amphibians and reptiles inventoried along the coastline between Cape Midia and Vama Veche (Romania).

Page 5: MARIUS FĂGĂRAŞ (coord.)

74

0

5

10

15

20

1 3 5 7 9 11Number of localities

Spec

ies

richn

ess

0

2

4

6

8

10

1 2 3 4 5

Number of visits

Num

ber o

f spe

cies

Bolata Dere

Kaliakra

Durankulak

Figure 3 – A. Species accumulation curve for amphibians and reptiles inventoried along the coastline between Durankulak and Cape Kaliakra (Bulgaria). B. Species accumulation curve for three Bulgarian sites with high

species richness according to the number of visits.

B.

A.

Page 6: MARIUS FĂGĂRAŞ (coord.)

75

Some species were widespread and/or had a high detectability and were recorded from most sites and/or during each visit (Figure 4). This is the case for water frogs of the Rana esculenta complex and for the lizard Podarcis taurica and the tortoise Testudo graeca. Other species were rare, either limited to aquatic habitats (e.g. Emys orbicularis, B. bombina) or type of soil (e.g. Pelobates sp.).

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

Lacerta trilineataEmys orbicularis

Vipera ammodytesBombina bombina

Pelobates syriacusDolicophis caspius

Natrix natrixPseudopus apodus

Bufo viridisHyla arborea

Lacerta viridisPodarcis muralis

Testudo graecaPodarcis taurica

Rana esculenta complex

Number of sightings

Figure 4 – Frequency of amphibians and reptiles based on the number of sightings along

the Bulgarian coastline between Durankulak and Cape Kaliakra in 2008.

The highest species richness was recorded in Bulgaria in sites that contained both terrestrial and aquatic habitats (Durankulak, Bolata Dere, Rusalka) while the sites without freshwater aquatic habitats had a lower species richness due to the absence of most amphibian species (Figure 5).

0 2 4 6 8 10

YaylataKamen Bryag

KrapetsShablaTuzlata

ZelenkaRusalka

Bolata DereDurankulak

Kaliakra

Number of species

Figure 5 – Relative species richness of amphibians and reptiles in several sites

inventoried in Bulgaria in 2008.

Page 7: MARIUS FĂGĂRAŞ (coord.)

76

The species richness pattern can not be correlated with human density, a high number of species being recorded also from urban or industrial areas (Figure 6). Overall, coastal areas with wetlands hold the highest species diversity, while the lowest is recorded from inland arid plains used mainly in agriculture, with or without irrigation.

Figure 6 – Amphibian and reptile species richness along the coastline

between Cape Midia and Cape Kaliakra.

Page 8: MARIUS FĂGĂRAŞ (coord.)

77

The distribution of several amphibian and reptile species are presented below, including widespread species like Bufo viridis (Figure 7), Podarcis taurica (Figure 8), Natrix natrix (Figure 9), Dolicophis caspius (Figure 10), Testudo graeca (Figure 11), or species with specific habitat requirements and a more restricted distribution, like Bombina bombina (Figure 12), Hyla arborea (Figure 13) or Podarcis muralis (Figure 14).

Figure 7 – Distribution of the Green Toad Bufo viridis along the coastline between Cape Midia and Cape Kaliakra.

Page 9: MARIUS FĂGĂRAŞ (coord.)

78

Figure 8 – Distribution of the Balkan Wall lizard Podarcis taurica along the coastline between Cape Midia and Cape Kaliakra.

Page 10: MARIUS FĂGĂRAŞ (coord.)

79

Figure 9 – Distribution of the Grass Snake Natrix natrix along the coastline between Cape Midia and Cape Kaliakra.

Page 11: MARIUS FĂGĂRAŞ (coord.)

80

Figure 10 – Distribution of the Large Whip Snake Coluber caspius along the coastline between Cape Midia and Cape Kaliakra.

Page 12: MARIUS FĂGĂRAŞ (coord.)

81

Figure 11 – Distribution of the Spur-thighed Tortoise Testudo graeca along the coastline between Cape Midia and Cape Kaliakra.

Page 13: MARIUS FĂGĂRAŞ (coord.)

82

Figure 12 – Distribution of the Fire-bellied toad Bombina bombina along the coastline between Cape Midia and Cape Kaliakra.

Page 14: MARIUS FĂGĂRAŞ (coord.)

83

Figure 13 – Distribution of the Tree Frog Hyla arborea along the coastline between Cape Midia and Cape Kaliakra.

Page 15: MARIUS FĂGĂRAŞ (coord.)

84

Figure 14 – Distribution of the Wall lizard Podarcis muralis along the coastline between Cape Midia and Cape Kaliakra.

Page 16: MARIUS FĂGĂRAŞ (coord.)

85

Several species have an even more restricted distribution in the studied area, reaching either their northern distribution limit (e.g. Ophisaurus apodus) or their southern limit (e.g. Eremias arguta) (Figure 15).

Figure 15 – Distribution of the Steppe Runner Eremias arguta and the European Glass Lizard Ophisaurus apodus along the coastline between Cape Midia and Cape Kaliakra.

Page 17: MARIUS FĂGĂRAŞ (coord.)

86

The amphibian and reptile fauna is similar for the coastline stretches of the two countries, despite the rather large differences between Balkan countries (Atatür and Yilmaz 1986). Bulgaria has a higher amphibian and reptile species diversity as compared to Romania, despite its smaller area (Table 1). The area covered by our study is relatively uniform relatively to the number of species, only two reptile species being present only in one country each (Eremias arguta in Romania and Pseudopus apodus in Bulgaria).

Our inventory was not complete as indicated by the species accumulation curves. When comparing our results to the management plans for two protected areas in Bulgaria – Durankulak and Shabla the differences in species richness are significant. The species listed in the management plans are not based on inventories but on the coarse distribution of the amphibians and reptiles in Bulgaria. It is not backed by recent distribution maps (Gasc et al. 1997; Naumov and Stanchev 2008). For example, Trayanov (1996, unpublished report cited in the Draft Management Plan for Shabla Lake Complex in 1998) reports five amphibian and six reptile species in Shabla lake complex. For Kaliakra and Bolata Dere, the Draft Management Plan (1997) mentions 20 species, but the report is unreliable and does not refer to any bibliographic source. For example, it cites Triturus cristatus, which is not present in Bulgaria, clearly confusing it with T. karelinii, mentions B. variegata, confusing it with B. bombina, wrongly mentions Lacerta taurica and L. muralis, which belong to the genus Podarcis.

The herpetofauna of Romania and Bulgaria differs in both species richness and percentage of species protected. The conservation status of amphibians and reptiles varies between the two countries (Table 1). While in Romania all species, except for Natrix natrix, are included in OUG 57/2007, in Bulgaria only 2/3 are included in the annexes (Law 77/2002). Table 1 – The number of species of amphibians and reptiles from Romania and Bulgaria and their conservation

status. Romania also protects subspecies and they are represented in addition to the number of species preserved.

PARAMETERS ROMANIA BULGARIA

Surface (km2) 237,500 110,910

Amphibians (number of species) 19+1 18

Protected by Habitats Directive (number) 20 17

Protected by Habitats Directive (%) 100% 94%

Number of amphibian species from the investigated coastline area 8 7

Reptiles (number of species) 23+1 35

Protected by Habitats Directive (number) 23 24

Protected by Habitats Directive (%) 96% 68%

Total number of species 42+2 53

Species density (number of species/10,000 km2) 1.76/1.85 9.81 Number of reptile species from the investigated coastline area 8 9

A more detailed comparative analysis of the distribution and conservation status of amphibians and reptiles in the two countries is given in Tables 2 and 3.

Page 18: MARIUS FĂGĂRAŞ (coord.)

87

Both countries share many environmental problems along the 170 km of terrestrial border in Dobrudja. Nevertheless there are many differences between the measures taken by the two governments in tackling environmental problems, starting from discrepancies in legislation and conservation status. Protecting the unique ecosystems and species diversity of the Black Sea Coast requires a higher degree of cooperation and joint measures, in a coherent approach.

Table 2 - A comparative analysis of the conservation status of amphibians in Romania, Bulgaria and according to international conventions or IUCN Red List. The EU Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) was implemented in

Romania by OUG 57/2007 and in Bulgaria by Law 77/2002. The Romanian Red List is according to Botnariuc and Tatole (2005) and the Bulgarian according to Beschkov (1985). The species inventoried during the present

study are marked with P.

Page 19: MARIUS FĂGĂRAŞ (coord.)

88

Table 3 - A comparative analysis of the conservation status of reptiles in Romania, Bulgaria and according to international conventions or IUCN Red List. The taxonomy is according to national legislation; in four species

different names are used in the two countries. The EU Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) was implemented in Romania by OUG 57/2007 and in Bulgaria by Law 77/2002. The Romanian Red List is according to Botnariuc and Tatole (2005) and the Bulgarian Red List according to Beschkov (1985).The species inventoried during the

present study are marked with P.

Page 20: MARIUS FĂGĂRAŞ (coord.)

References

1. ATATÜR, M.K., YILMAZ, I., 1986 - A comparison of the amphibian fauna of Turkish Thrace with that of Anatolia and Balkan States. Amphibia-Reptilia 7: 135-140.

2. BESCHKOV, V., 1984 - On the Distribution, Relative Abundance and Protection of Tortoises in Bulgaria. Ekology, 14: 14-34.

3. BESCHKOV, V., 1984 - The Effect of the Balkan Range on the Distribution of the Herpetofauna in Bulgaria. Acta zool. bulg., 25: 9-15.

4. BESCHKOV, V., 1985 - Amphibia and Reptilia in Red Data Book of the P. R. of Bulgaria, Animals, 2: 32-41.

5. BOTNARIUC, N., TATOLE, V. (Editors). 2005. Cartea Roşie a Vertebratelor din România. Academia Română/Muzeul Naţional de Istorie Naturală “Grigore Antipa”.

6. COLWELL, R. K., 2005 - EstimateS: Statistical estimation of species richness and shared species from samples. Version 7.5. User's Guide and application published at: http://purl.oclc.org/estimates.

7. DODD, K.C., LOMAN, J., COGĂLNICEANU, D., PUKY, M. in press - Monitoring amphibian populations. Ch. 18. Amphibian Biology, vol. 8, Surrey Beatty & Sons.

8. FROST, D.R., GRANT, T., FAIVOVICH, J., BAIN, R.H., HAAS, A., HADDAD, C.F.B., DE SA, R.O., CHANNING, A., WILKINSON, M., DONNELLAN, S.C., RAXWORTHY, C.J., CAMPBELL, J.A., BLOTTO, B.L., MOLER, P., DREWES, R.C., NUSSBAUM, R.A., LYNCH, J.D., GREEN, D.M., WHEELER, W.C., 2006 - The amphibian tree of life. Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist. 297: 1-370.

9. GASC, J.P., CABELA, A., CRNOBRNJA-ISAILOVIC, J., DOLMEN, D., GROSSENBACHER, K., HAFFNER, P., LESCURE, J., MARTENS, H., MARTÍNEZ RICA, J.P., MAURIN, H., OLIVEIRA, M.E., SOFIANIDOU, T.S., VEITH, M., AND ZUIDERWIJK, A. (Editors), 1997 - Atlas of Amphibians and Reptiles in Europe. SEH, MNHN & SPN, Paris.

10. GASCON, C., COLLINS, J. P., MOORE, R. D., CHURCH, D. R., MCKAY, J. E., MENDELSON, J. R. III (eds), 2007 - Amphibian Conservation Action Plan. IUCN/SSC Amphibian Specialist Group. Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. 64 pp.

11. GIBBONS, J.W. SCOTT, D.E., RYAN, T.J., BUHLMANN, K.A., TUBERVILLE, T.D., METTS, B.S., GREENE, J.L., MILLS, T., LEIDEN, Y., POPPY, S., WINNE, C.T., 2000 - The Global Decline of Reptiles, Déjà Vu Amphibians . BioScience 50: 653-666.

12. LEPŞI, I., 1926 - Ophisaurus apus Pall. neu für Rumänien. Verh. Mitt. Siebenb. Ver. Naturw. Hermannstadt. Sibiu, 75-76: 45-48.

13. LEPŞI, I., 1927 - Beiträge zur Reptilien fauna der südöstlichen Dobrudscha. Verh. Mitt. Siebenb. Ver. Naturw. Hermannstadt. Sibiu, 77: 1-24.

14. LEPŞI, I., 1929 - Despre fauna Dobrogei. Revista ştiinţifică “V. Adamachi”, Iaşi, 2-3: 1-11. 15. NAUMOV, B., STANCHEV, M., 2008 - Amphibians and reptiles in Bulgaria and Balkan Peninsula.

An online edition of the Bulgarian Herpetological Society. Accessible at: http://www.geocities.com/herpetology_bg.

16. STUART, S.N., CHANSON, I.S., COX, N.A., YOUNG, B.E., RODRIGUES, A.S.L., FISHMAN, D.L., WALLER, R.W., 2004 - Status and trends of amphibian declines and extinctions worldwide. Science 3: 1783-1785.

17. SZÉKELY, P., PLĂIAŞU, R., TUDOR, M., COGĂLNICEANU, D. in press - The distribution and conservation status of amphibians in Dobrudja (Romania). Turkish Journal of Zoology.

18. ***, 1998 - Shabla Lake Complex. Management Plan. Draft. Ministry of Environment & Waters BirdLife Switzerland Swiss Agency for Develpment & National Nature Protection Service /SVS/ Co-operation /SDC. Bulgaria, Varna.

19. ***, 1997 - Kaliakra Reserve. Management Plan. Draft Ministry of Environment & Waters Swiss Agency for Develpment & National Nature Protection Service Co-operation /SDC/Bulgaria, 1997